DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) in a cooperative agreement with Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). If ADM received the funding, the company would demonstrate an integrated system of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture in an industrial setting and geologic sequestration in a sandstone reservoir. The CO2 that would be sequestered is currently a by-product of ADM's Decatur fuel-grade ethanol production facility. ADM would capture approximately one million short tons of CO2 per year using dehydration and compression. The compressed CO2 would be piped approximately one mile to an injection well and sequestered in the Mount (Mt.) Simon Sandstone Formation, a saline reservoir. The project team members include ADM, the Illinois State Geological Survey, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and Richland Community College. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $141.4 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to ADM. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $207.9 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

India - home to one of the world's largest populations without electricity access - has set the ambitious goal of achieving universal electrification by 2017. 311 million people, a quarter of its population, remains without power, despite substantial efforts to increased affordable access for the poor. This study focuses on India's residential electricity subsidies, as viewed through a poverty lens. Addressing these issues is especially urgent since the residential electricity sector accounts for nearly a quarter of India's total electricity consumption. Comparison of two survey rounds (2004/05 and 2009/10) was used to assess changes in electricity consumption over time. The study approach analysed subsidy distribution by both below poverty line (BPL) and above poverty line (APL) grouping, as well as income quintile, to allow for the wide variation in poverty rates states. The key findings in this study are that 87 percent of subsidy payments go to APL households instead of to the poor, and over half of subsidy payments are directed to the richest two-fifths of households. Furthermore, these estimates are conservative because they assume that BPL and APL households are accurately identified. Because APL households tend to consume more electricity, subsidies are skewed toward the upper quintiles. The major driver of these outcomes is tariff design. Few states have highly concessional BPL tariffs; in most, all households are eligible for a subsidy on at least a portion of their monthly electricity consumption. Combined with the fact that the poorest households consume relatively small amounts of electricity means that wealthier consumers with electricity access are typically eligible for just as much, if not more, subsidy as poorer ones. India's states have a variety of available options for improving their subsidy performance. Certain states model good practices that other states could consider adopting, for example, Punjab, Sikkim, Chattisgarh, and others. States may consider four model tariff structures that meet the twin, medium-term policy goals of high subsidy targeting and low cost. These are (i) creating BPL tariff schedules and eliminating subsidies from other schedules, (ii) delivering subsidies through cash transfers instead of tariffs, (iii) creating a volume differentiated tariff (VDT), and (iv) creating a lifeline tariff and removing subsidies from other tariffs.

This World Bank review, Governance of Indian State Power Utilities: An Ongoing Journey, is a first attempt to systematically examine the quality of corporate and regulatory governance in the Indian power sector. Considering that much of the poor performance of utilities reflected internal and external shortfalls in governance, India's Electricity Act of 2003 mandated unbundling and corporatising the vertically integrated state electricity boards, along with establishing independent regulators at the center and in the states. The aim was to create a more accountable and commercial performance culture. A particular motivation was the need to keep the state government at arm's length from utilities and regulators alike. This review assesses aspects of corporate governance that would be expected to increase the internal and external accountability of utilities; the institutional design of state-level regulation; and the extent to which regulators have implemented key elements of their mandate. In addition, it examines the correlation between the adoption of recommended corporate governance practices and utility performance, and between regulatory governance and utility performance. It finds that while unbundling the electricity boards has progressed quite well on paper, actual separation and functional independence of the unbundled entities is considerably less than it appears - and clearly identifying the contributions of individual entities in the service value chain and holding them accountable for their performance remains difficult. Corporatisation has been unable to insulate utilities from state interference because boards remain state dominated, lack sufficient decision-making authority, and are rarely evaluated on performance. Also, the regulatory environment has not sufficiently pushed utilities to improve performance. State electricity regulatory commissions have been established in all states, but a lack of accountability and autonomy and limited technical capacity have restricted their ability to create an independent, transparent, and unbiased governance framework for the sector that balances consumer and investor/utility interests.

The "Top 25 Electricity KPIs of 2011-2012" report provides insights into the state of the industry's performance measurement today by listing and analyzing the most visited KPIs for this industry on smartKPIs.com in 2011. In addition to KPI names, it contains a detailed description of each KPI, in the standard smartKPIs.com KPI documentation format, that includes fields such as: definition, purpose, calculation, limitation, overall notes and additional resources. This product is part of the "Top KPIs of 2011-2012" series of reports and a result of the research program conducted by the analysts of smartKPIs.com in the area of integrated performance management and measurement. SmartKPIs.com hosts the largest catalogue of thoroughly documented KPI examples, representing an excellent platform for research and dissemination of insights on KPIs and related topics. The hundreds of thousands of visits to smartKPIs.com and the thousands of KPIs visited, bookmarked and rated by members of this online community in 2011 provided a rich data set, which combined with further analysis from the editorial team, formed the basis of these research reports.

Energy supplies and prices are major economic factors in the United States, and energy markets are volatile and unpredictable. Thus, energy policy has been a recurring issue for Congress since the first major crisis in the 1970s. As an aid in policy making, this report presents a current and historical view of the supply and consumption of various forms of energy. The historical trends show petroleum as the major source of energy, rising from about 38% in 1950 to 45% in 1975, then declining to about 40% in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s. Significantly, the transportation sector continues to be almost completely dependent on petroleum, mostly gasoline. The importance of this dependence on the volatile world oil market was revealed over the past five years as perceptions of impending inability of the industry to meet increasing world demand led to three years of steady increases in the prices of oil and gasoline. With the downturn in the world economy and a consequent decline in consumption, prices collapsed, but then recovered to a much higher level than in the 1990s. With the crisis in Libya in the Spring of 2011, oil and gasoline prices began again to approach their former peak levels. By 2012, Libyan production had recovered, but a new crisis involving Iran further threatened supply. Natural gas followed a long-term pattern of U.S. consumption similar to that of oil, at a lower level. Its share of total energy increased from about 17% in 1950 to more than 30% in 1970, then declined to about 20%. Natural gas markets are very much more regional than the petroleum market, in which events in one part of the world tend to influence consumption and prices everywhere. Recent development of large deposits of shale gas in the United States have increased the outlook for U.S. natural gas supply and consumption in the near future. Consumption of coal in 1950 was 35% of the total, almost equal to oil, but it declined to about 20% a decade later and has remained at about that proportion since then. Coal currently is used almost exclusively for electric power generation, and its contribution to increased production of carbon dioxide has made its use controversial in light of concerns about global climate change. Nuclear power started coming online in significant amounts in the late 1960s. By 1975, in the midst of the oil crisis, it was supplying 9% of total electricity generation. However, increases in capital costs, construction delays, and public opposition to nuclear power following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 curtailed expansion of the technology, and many construction projects were cancelled. Continuation of some construction increased the nuclear share of generation to 20% in 1990, where it remains currently. Licenses for a number of new nuclear units have been in the works for several years, and preliminary construction for a few units has begun, but the economic downturn has discouraged action on new construction. The accident at Japan's Fukushima station following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami raised further questions about future construction of nuclear powerplants. Construction of major hydroelectric projects has also essentially ceased, and hydropower's share of electricity generation has gradually declined, from 30% in 1950 to 15% in 1975 and less than 10% in 2000. However, hydropower remains highly important on a regional basis. Renewable energy sources (except hydropower) continue to offer more potential than actual energy production, although fuel ethanol has become a significant factor in transportation fuel. Wind power has recently grown rapidly, although it still contributes only a small share of total electricity generation. Conservation and energy efficiency have shown significant gains over the past three decades and offer potential to relieve some of the dependence on oil imports.

India has been one of the world s leading developing countries in providing electricity to both rural and urban populations. The country s rural energy policies and institutions have contributed greatly to reducing the number of people globally who continue to lack access to electricity. By late 2012, the national electricity grid had reached 92 percent of India s rural villages, about 880 million people. Yet, owing mainly to its large population, India still has by far the world s largest number of households without electricity. About 311 million people still live without electricity, and they mostly reside in poor rural areas. Among these, 200 million live in villages that already have electricity. Less than half of all households in the poorest income group have electricity. Even among households that have electric service, hundreds of millions lack reliable supply, experiencing power cuts almost daily. Achieving universal access to electricity by 2030 is not financially prohibitive for India. The challenge of providing electricity for all is achievable, ensuring that India joins such countries as China and Brazil in reaching out to even its remotest populations. The estimated annual investments necessary to reach universal access are in the range of Rs. 108 billion (US$2.4 billion) to Rs. 139 billion (US$3 billion). Considering that the country already spends about Rs. 45 billion ($1 billion) a year on new electricity lines through the current government program, the additional investments needed to achieve universal access by 2030 are quite reasonable. Investments are not the only hurdle to providing electricity to those presently without service. Policies will need to be aligned with the principles followed in other successful international programs. The potential benefits of electrification for those without service are quite high. The benefits of lighting alone would approximately equal the investments necessary to extend electricity for all. When households that adopt electricity switch from kerosene lamps to electric light bulbs, they experience an enormous price drop for lighting energy and can have more light for a range of household activities, including reading, studying, cooking, and socializing. Households with electricity consume more than 100 times as much light as households with kerosene for about the same amount of money. The potential value of the additional lighting can be as large as 11.5 percent of a typical household s monthly budget. If universal access is achieved by 2030, the cumulative benefit for improved lighting alone would equal about Rs. 3.8 trillion (US$69 billion) or Rs. 190 billion ($3.4 billion) in annual benefits. This is greater than the cost of providing electricity service, and does not even include such benefits as improved communications, household comfort, food preservation, and income from productive activities. With electric lighting, households can generate more income, and children can have better educational outcomes and income-earning potential. Without quality energy services, households often face entrenched poverty, poor delivery of social services, and limited opportunities for women and girls."

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to ArcelorMittal USA, Inc. (ArcelorMittal) to construct and operate a boiler to capture blast furnace waste gas and convert it into electricity. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $31.5 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, ArcelorMittal. The total cost of the proposed project would be about $63.2 million. ArcelorMittal's project involves construction and operation of a blast furnace gas recovery boiler to capture and use 46 billion cubic feet of blast furnace gas per year. ArcelorMittal would use the gas, which it currently burns and releases to the atmosphere, to generate electricity for use at the plant. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy. In addition to adding and retaining jobs in the East Chicago area, the project would use waste energy in blast furnace gas to generate electricity. The electricity would replace the same amount of electricity ArcelorMittal purchases from utilities that use conventional power-generating sources such as coal-fired power plants.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) grant to Saft America, Inc., Jacksonville Plant to construct and operate a high-volume manufacturing plant to build advanced lithium-ion cells and batteries for military hybrid vehicles, aviation, smart grid support, broadband backup power, and energy storage for renewable energy. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $95.5 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Saft America Inc., Jacksonville Plant. The total cost of the proposed project is estimated at $191 million. Saft America's facility would be built at the Cecil Commerce Center, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse impacts for the proposed project. Beneficial impacts to the nation's air quality and transportation could be realized from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts would occur from increased employment opportunities and spending in the local economy.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) financial assistance grant to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products) to facilitate construction and operation of a plant to recover waste energy at the AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel) Middletown Works in Middletown, Ohio. DOE's Proposed Action would provide $30 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Air Products. The total cost of the proposed project would be about $315 million. Air Products' proposed project would construct and operate a combined-cycle power generation plant that would capture and process blast furnace gas to produce electricity and process steam. Air Products would build the plant on AK Steel's existing Middletown Works site, which manufactures cold-rolled steel products. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy and air quality. In addition to adding and retaining jobs in the Middletown area, the project would convert waste energy from blast furnace gas, half of which is currently burned and released to the atmosphere, to generate electricity and process steam. The generated electricity could replace the same amount of electricity AK Steel purchases from conventional power generating sources such as coal-fired power plants.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) grant to Compact Power, Inc. to construct and operate a high-volume manufacturing plant to build advanced lithium-ion cells and batteries. The cells and batteries would be for use in automotive applications including but not limited to hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric, pure electric vehicles for commercial purposes, and military hybrid vehicles, as well as for aviation, smart grid support, broadband backup power, and energy storage for renewable energy. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $151 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Compact Power, Inc. The total cost of the project is estimated at $303 million. Compact Power, Inc.'s proposed project would expand its domestic capacity to produce advanced lead-acid batteries for use in the transportation industry. Compact's 850,000-square-foot facility would be built on vacant land located mostly in the City of Holland, Allegan County, Michigan, with a small portion of the proposed site located in the adjacent Fillmore Township. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse impacts for the proposed project after consideration of the mitigation of impacts to wetlands. Beneficial impacts to the nation's air quality and transportation could be realized from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, beneficial socioeconomic impacts would occur from increased employment opportunities and spending in the affected local economies.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to Celgard under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the electric drive vehicles (EDV) industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Celgard to construct a small industrial facility (approximately 135,000 square feet) on approximately 20.6 acres of land for the manufacturing of separator materials for commercial HEV batteries. The proposed project would involve the installation of a manufacturing plant with sufficient capacity to manufacture at least 1,000,000 square meters of separator material to support the assembly of at least 20,000 plug-in HEV batteries, or equivalent, per year in accordance with the requirements of DOE's Funding Opportunity Announcement. Additionally, the project would create approximately 273 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Celgard's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, geology and soils, groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, socioeconomic, utilities and energy use, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action -- providing financial assistance to Novolyte under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. DOE's program will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for the expansion of Novolyte's current operations in Zachary, Louisiana, to increase capacity and utilization of its existing electrolytes manufacturing facility (referred to as the "Proposed Project" within this EA). The Proposed Project would help to meet the growing North American demand for electrolytes as the EDV and HEV markets develop. The expansion would include increasing capacity and utilization of the existing electrolytes facility, and would include constructing a new production building, moving existing equipment into the new facility, and adding additional capabilities to meet the forecasted demand. Additionally, the Proposed Project would create 18 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Novolyte's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, geology and soils, surface water and groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Power Ring Manufacturing Scale-up, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $9,090,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, SBE, Inc. (SBE). The total cost of the project is estimated at $18,186,387. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of providing two types of financial assistance to Dow Kokam MI, LLC to construct and operate the Midland Battery Park for manufacturing of advanced lithium polymer batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles: (1) a grant under Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA 0000026, Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative and (2) a loan pursuant to Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 as an automotive component supplier promoting improved fuel economy in light-duty vehicles. As the name of the grant Funding Opportunity Announcement indicates, the grant would be made from funds appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115). This EA analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the battery manufacturing facility by Dow Kokam MI, LLC, the two proposed federal actions (a grant and a loan), and the alternatives to the proposed project. The Midland Battery Park would be constructed on a 50-acre vacant site in Midland, Michigan, that is zoned industrial and surrounded by other industrial and commercial facilities. The new battery manufacturing facility would be about 770,000 square feet in size and would require a new 1- to 2-mile-long electric transmission line. DOE evaluated 15 resource areas in this EA and identified no significant adverse impacts for DOE's proposed actions, which would facilitate construction of the Midland Battery Park. With the following exceptions, impacts to the resource areas and issues examined would not occur or would be negligible. The proposed project site would be located in an area where soils were previously contaminated with dioxin and near areas with shallow groundwater contaminated with vinyl chloride and Freon 11. Concentrations of dioxin at the site are within acceptable limits for industrial uses and due care requirements would be implemented during construction to minimize risks of exposure. Discharge permit requirements for the safe handling and treatment of contaminated groundwater would be implemented during temporary dewatering to excavate and install detention basins and underground utilities. Over nine acres of isolated non-jurisdictional wetlands would be filled to construct the facility. The state of Michigan determined that these wetlands are not regulated under Federal or State laws. Detention basins would be created to temporarily store on-site storm water runoff and replace the main function of these low value wetlands. DOE determined that grading and filling these wetlands would not cause significant adverse impacts. A new transmission line could be a risk to migratory birds and could impact nearby wetlands and sensitive species. However, the transmission line should be designed to avoid these wetlands and protected species and common design standards should be implemented to minimize risks to migratory birds. Beneficial economic impacts would occur from increased employment opportunities and spending in the local economy. The use of batteries produced at this facility would increase the use of electric and hybrid vehicles, which would help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to Pyrotek under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Pyrotek to construct an industrial building; installation of electrically heated furnaces and other production equipment such as conveyors, collectors, screens, and cooling towers required to accomplish the proposed expansion of the graphitization process on the Metaullics Systems' Sanborn facility in Sanborn, New York. The expansion would result in an increase in anode material production capacity to meet higher projected demands, decrease processing costs to provide lower priced material to customers, and meet the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by creating and preserving jobs. The project would create approximately 50 new jobs and retain approximately 55 existing facility jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Pyrotek's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality, noise, geology and soils, surface water, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous waste, and transportation and traffic. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The novelty of this work is the fact that it introduces a rigorous and objective economic perspective of current renewable energy support mechanisms and an empirical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms, which is much needed in a debate often dominated by widespread misconceptions. The economic rationale for renewable energy is straightforward: the optimum amount of renewable energy for grid-connected generation is given by the intersection of the renewable energy supply curve with the avoided cost of thermal electricity generation. The proposed analytical framework: (i) differentiates and illustrates trade-offs among local, regional, and national impacts, in the short and long run; (ii) captures distributional impacts; and (iii) captures externalities and compares alternative projects based on equivalent output and cost. Accordingly, the study advocates for the need to get the economic, financial, and institutional basics right for the deployment of renewable energy. The study s integration of renewable energy subsidies with fossil subsidies is another novel and important contribution. This allows important comparisons. For example, to reduce carbon intensity in developing country economies, is it more efficient to deploy renewable energy or implement alternative options, such as eliminating subsidies on fossil fuels? The work is based on case studies of Vietnam, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Tanzania, Egypt, Brazil, and Turkey, selected to provide a representative sample of countries with different energy endowments (coal, natural gas, and hydro-based systems) and policy incentives (from feed-in tariffs to auctions). Along the way, the incremental cost of renewable energy is compared with the average cost of generation. The selection and design of support mechanisms in turn determines the impacts on the budget and residential consumers. The main lessons emerging from the case studies are that successful renewable energy policies: Will only be effective once the state-owned utilities who are the buyers of grid-connected renewable energy are themselves in good financial health Need to be grounded in economic analysis and accompanied by the application of market principles to ensure economic efficiency Require a sustainable, equitable, and transparent recovery of incremental costs"